@article{RoeStreckBeachetal.2021,
  author    = {Roe, Stephanie and Streck, Charlotte and Beach, Robert and Busch, Jonah and Chapman, Melissa and Daioglou, Vassilis and Deppermann, Andre and Doelman, Jonathan and Emmet-Booth, Jeremy and Engelmann, Jens and Fricko, Oliver and Frischmann, Chad and Funk, Jason and Grassi, Giacomo and Griscom, Bronson and Havlik, Petr and Hanssen, Steef and Humpen{\"o}der, Florian and Landholm, David and Lomax, Guy and Lehmann, Johannes and Mesnildrey, Leah and Nabuurs, Gert-Jan and Popp, Alexander and Rivard, Charlotte and Sanderman, Jonathan and Sohngen, Brent and Smith, Pete and Stehfest, Elke and Woolf, Dominic and Lawrence, Deborah},
  title     = {Land-based measures to mitigate climate change},
  series = {Global change biology},
  volume    = {27},
  journal   = {Global change biology},
  number    = {23},
  publisher = {Wiley-Blackwell},
  address   = {Oxford},
  issn      = {1365-2486},
  doi       = {10.1111/gcb.15873},
  pages     = {6025 -- 6058},
  year      = {2021},
  abstract  = {Land-based climate mitigation measures have gained significant attention and importance in public and private sector climate policies. Building on previous studies, we refine and update the mitigation potentials for 20 land-based measures in >200 countries and five regions, comparing "bottom-up" sectoral estimates with integrated assessment models (IAMs). We also assess implementation feasibility at the country level. Cost-effective (available up to \$100/tCO2eq) land-based mitigation is 8-13.8 GtCO2eq yr-1 between 2020 and 2050, with the bottom end of this range representing the IAM median and the upper end representing the sectoral estimate. The cost-effective sectoral estimate is about 40\% of available technical potential and is in line with achieving a 1.5°C pathway in 2050. Compared to technical potentials, cost-effective estimates represent a more realistic and actionable target for policy. The cost-effective potential is approximately 50\% from forests and other ecosystems, 35\% from agriculture, and 15\% from demand-side measures. The potential varies sixfold across the five regions assessed (0.75-4.8 GtCO2eq yr-1) and the top 15 countries account for about 60\% of the global potential. Protection of forests and other ecosystems and demand-side measures present particularly high mitigation efficiency, high provision of co-benefits, and relatively lower costs. The feasibility assessment suggests that governance, economic investment, and socio-cultural conditions influence the likelihood that land-based mitigation potentials are realized. A substantial portion of potential (80\%) is in developing countries and LDCs, where feasibility barriers are of greatest concern. Assisting countries to overcome barriers may result in significant quantities of near-term, low-cost mitigation while locally achieving important climate adaptation and development benefits. Opportunities among countries vary widely depending on types of land-based measures available, their potential co-benefits and risks, and their feasibility. Enhanced investments and country-specific plans that accommodate this complexity are urgently needed to realize the large global potential from improved land stewardship.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{HerreroThorntonMasonD'Crozetal.2020,
  author    = {Herrero, Mario and Thornton, Philip K. and Mason-D'Croz, Daniel and Palmer, Jeda and Bodirsky, Benjamin Leon and Pradhan, Prajal and Barrett, Christopher B. and Benton, Tim G. and Hall, Andrew and Pikaar, Ilje and Bogard, Jessica R. and Bonnett, Graham D. and Bryan, Brett A. and Campbell, Bruce M. and Christensen, Svend and Clark, Michael and Fanzo, Jessica and Godde, Cecile M. and Jarvis, Andy and Loboguerrero, Ana Maria and Mathys, Alexander and McIntyre, C. Lynne and Naylor, Rosamond L. and Nelson, Rebecca and Obersteiner, Michael and Parodi, Alejandro and Popp, Alexander and Ricketts, Katie and Smith, Pete and Valin, Hugo and Vermeulen, Sonja J. and Vervoort, Joost and van Wijk, Mark and van Zanten, Hannah H. E. and West, Paul C. and Wood, Stephen A. and Rockstr{\"o}m, Johan},
  title     = {Articulating the effect of food systems innovation on the Sustainable Development Goals},
  series = {The lancet Planetary health},
  volume    = {5},
  journal   = {The lancet Planetary health},
  number    = {1},
  publisher = {Elsevier},
  address   = {Oxford},
  issn      = {2542-5196},
  doi       = {10.1016/S2542-5196(20)30277-1},
  pages     = {E50 -- E62},
  year      = {2020},
  abstract  = {Food system innovations will be instrumental to achieving multiple Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). However, major innovation breakthroughs can trigger profound and disruptive changes, leading to simultaneous and interlinked reconfigurations of multiple parts of the global food system. The emergence of new technologies or social solutions, therefore, have very different impact profiles, with favourable consequences for some SDGs and unintended adverse side-effects for others. Stand-alone innovations seldom achieve positive outcomes over multiple sustainability dimensions. Instead, they should be embedded as part of systemic changes that facilitate the implementation of the SDGs. Emerging trade-offs need to be intentionally addressed to achieve true sustainability, particularly those involving social aspects like inequality in its many forms, social justice, and strong institutions, which remain challenging. Trade-offs with undesirable consequences are manageable through the development of well planned transition pathways, careful monitoring of key indicators, and through the implementation of transparent science targets at the local level.},
  language  = {en}
}